Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[pemerton]

players who can see that they lack choices they might otherwise expect to have, might not like that.

This remark tends to reinforce the impression I'm getting that "linear adventure" has two uses:

* To describe geography (maybe with an additional premise in the neighbourhood, along the lines of where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames);

* To describe interdependencies between scenes, such that one has to finish a certain way (or within certain parameters) for the next to be framed.

 

[niklinna]

I've bolded two bits of your post. Is "the other stuff" that gets interesting "the dependence of stuff in subsequent scenes on earlier scenes"?

Yes, that's what I meant.

I think that is an interesting property of preparing/scripting scenes for RPGing. Because it requires that whichever scene is run first produce certain outcomes that will support the dependencies that obtain in which scene is run second. And there is evident scope for tension between requiring certain outcomes be produced and players declaring actions for their PCs.

Yes, it makes for much more interesting adventures (or parts thereof).

The idea of "shunting" seems related to the idea of producing certain outcomes that will support the dependencies between scenes.

As well as the sorts of dependencies @niklinna mentions (obtaining a thing, meeting a person etc) there can be dependencies like this: if Scene B opens "As your reach the crest of the mountain pass, you see a scene of devastation in the land below", that won't work if at the end of Scene A the protagonists decided not to cross the mountains.

True, assuming the GM gives them the choice. Maybe they just end scene A and courageously frame scene B without asking.

OK, but then what's interesting isn't the "linearity" but rather the dependencies. So let's have a term to describe that.

As I already posted, The Green Knight has no such dependencies.

Based on your description, I would agree. You could go right from the opening scene to the closing scene. It would be boring, but feasible.

I've read some of The Alexandrian's work on "node-based design" and the closely related "three clue rule". I personally see it as a way of preparing a sophisticated sort of railroad. It tries to resolve the tension I describe just above by building in multiple, overlapping dependencies between scenes.

I haven't read those in a while, but as I've alluded to, linearity applies at different levels and to different aspects of an adventure. It's how overt the linearity of the design/script is, and how blatant it is in restricting or denying player choice, that leads to an adventure being called "linear" or a "railroad". Again, ultimately every adventure, once played, winds up linear in the strict sense of a single sequence of events in time.

This seems to be going back to geography.

But anyway I don't think this claim seems very plausible. The Green Knight is more interesting than many looping dungeon (or starship, or alien facility, or . . .) scenarios I've encountered. And I don't see how it would be more interesting by changing the sequence of the non-bookend scenes.

I would hazard that the action within each scene is sufficiently interesting and nonlinear that the higher scene-level linearity (assuming the GM sticks to the script) isn't likely to be noticed in play.

 

[niklinna]

This remark tends to reinforce the impression I'm getting that "linear adventure" has two uses:

* To describe geography (maybe with an additional premise in the neighbourhood, along the lines of where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames);

* To describe interdependencies between scenes, such that one has to finish a certain way (or within certain parameters) for the next to be framed.

Yes, it has at least those two uses. I mentioned other possible "situations" somewhere in a prior post: locations, NPCs, objects, events/actions. Those could be between scenes or within a scene. They might be coupled (event in a particular location, or event wherever the PCs happen to be), and so on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Extraordinary statements (there are ONLY three reasons people play TTRPGs) require extraordinary proof.

Let me know when there is ... you know, actual empirical proof through studies or surveys of players*, and not just people saying so.


*Even something as basic as the one I provided the link to earlier.

Well, first of all, that isn't really what he's saying. He's saying he can divide players primary agendas, during a game/session/campaign (perhaps) into 3 broad categories. He's NOT saying there aren't other ways to categorize players, nor that players are perfectly consistent, nor that they don't have more than one agenda. Its a solid logical argument made on observation. Surveying everyone to find out may not be feasible in that people don't exactly closely examine their own play in this way either.

So, sure, its reasonable to ask, "Is there evidence for this?" but really dismissing it out of hand doesn't work either. I mean, have you really read through these essays? There is quite a lot of really insightful observation there. Nobody is forcing you to agree with it, but when it actually works as a way of understanding RPGs, you can't just ignore it. I mean, look at the wide range of games built by reference to these ideas, and to ideas developed with them as a starting point. Where's another body of work that is equivalent?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's fair, and I agree! But that also ties into the "endless loop" that has been described by Torner, et al., in the hobby.

A. Amateur hobbyist declaring that there's a problem in TTRPGs.
B. This problem is caused by inconsistent desires/agendas/types of players.
C. Therefore, a new typology of players will be announced (almost always with some types being more equal than others, in the George Orwell sense).
D. Based on that typology, a theory (or theories) of TTRPGs and/or game design will bloom, under the concept that the system itself will enable/encourage/assist in certain types of play.
E. Rinse, repeat.

In addition, because of the hobbyist nature, the past lessons keep getting forgotten. We just keep re-inventing the wheel.

And what makes anything that Tomer says in any way shape or form any more authoritative than anything I say? Hell, I started playing D&D literally when the first 1974 books showed up in our FLGS. I've written all sorts of material of all kinds for dozens of different games, written a couple of my own games, and several wargames too. Talked to plenty of people, including a number of those that are considered influential and played with them too. I'm not CLAIMING to be some great expert, not at all, but surely I have plenty of reason to be able to stand up and be counted. What about all these academics? Did they run 10,000 hours of RPGs? I have!

I am perfectly willing to accept that both I am wrong, and Edwards is wrong. In fact, far from being mutually exclusive, I'd say that it's probably the most likely scenario. After all, I am just another amateur criticizing an amateur.

There's a lot of people that know more about the subject than me- which is why I post links and recommend people check it out!

Everyone is wrong, probably half the time, lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A-1 has some options. A-2 at first glance looks like it has all sorts of options, but a closer look or a run-through finds it in fact to be very linear in its design* other than a few branches in the lower level. A-3 has options outdoors then becomes linear once the PCs get into the actual "dungeon" bits, leading to a very railroad-y conclusion which really does need buy-in from the players.

But A-4 is an odd duck. It's clearly written with the intent of being quite linear, but in non-tournament play once the PCs get out of jail it's as open-ended as any module out there; yes there's a serious time crunch involved but there's very little restricting what the players can have their PCs (try to) do within that time. They have an entire small city to explore-befriend-pillage-hide in, and-or they can try to flee the island, and-or they could try to find a place to hunker down and survive what's coming then carry on afterwards, or whatever.

A-4 does very much leave the DM on her own should the PCs not do what the module expects, but I guess we can't expect much more from what was specifically written as a tournament adventure.

* - when I ran it I changed much of it from linear to looping via the simple addition of about six internal doors, a hidden staircase to provide a potential second vertical access point, and a postern gate to the outside.

Yeah, A4 is a weird module, almost a sort of odd little sandbox, except if you don't figure out some stuff before the timer expires, the whole sandbox goes kablooey! lol.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe they just end scene A and courageously frame scene B without asking.

I think there are lot of published adventures that would be improved by this - just hard frame, rather than pretend that the outcomes of action resolution are going to matter and then encourage the GM to contrive the background fiction and/or fudge results so as to get the mandated outcome.

Based on your description, I would agree. You could go right from the opening scene to the closing scene. It would be boring, but feasible.

<snip>

I would hazard that the action within each scene is sufficiently interesting and nonlinear that the higher scene-level linearity (assuming the GM sticks to the script) isn't likely to be noticed in play.

I think what you call the higher scene-level linearity is utterly transparent in the play of The Green Knight. At the end of an encounter, the GM goes through the process of "judgement", that is, noting accruals of Dishonour and also sheddings of Dishonour based on what the PCs did in the encounter. Then, once that's done, and once the players have a chance to decide whether or not one of the PCs undergoes "atonement" (other PCs can accrue 3 Dishonour to allow one PC to shed 1 Dishonour), the GM introduces the next scene.

linearity applies at different levels and to different aspects of an adventure. It's how overt the linearity of the design/script is, and how blatant it is in restricting or denying player choice, that leads to an adventure being called "linear" or a "railroad".

I see "railroad" as a different kettle of fish altogether! As I said, I regard node-based design as a way of designing railroads, but I doubt that anyone would call it "linear".

Conversely, The Green Knight is (it seems) linear but I don't see any sense in which it's a railroad. There are no dependencies between scenes, and therefore each scene can resolve however it resolves, with no need to manipulate backstory or fudge results or puts limits around permissible action declarations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The idea of "shunting" seems related to the idea of producing certain outcomes that will support the dependencies between scenes.

And indeed, the A series has a couple of points where 'certain outcomes' are required, and not guaranteed. OTOH you can basically bail out of most adventures at any point. The difference here being it IS possible to 'mess it up' in a couple places such that you CANNOT proceed (without fudging/alteration of the plot at least).

 

[niklinna]

I think there are lot of published adventures that would be improved by this - just hard frame, rather than pretend that the outcomes of action resolution are going to matter and then encourage the GM to contrive the background fiction and/or fudge results so as to get the mandated outcome.

I agree.

I think what you call the higher scene-level linearity is utterly transparent in the play of The Green Knight. At the end of an encounter, the GM goes through the process of "judgement", that is, noting accruals of Dishonour and also sheddings of Dishonour based on what the PCs did in the encounter. Then, once that's done, and once the players have a chance to decide whether or not one of the PCs undergoes "atonement" (other PCs can accrue 3 Dishonour to allow one PC to shed 1 Dishonour), the GM introduces the next scene.

Ah right, I forgot about that bit. Rather than "noticed", I should have said it wasn't something the players were likely to bump up against. (But who knows? I haven't sat at every table to ever run the adventure!)

I see "railroad" as a different kettle of fish altogether! As I said, I regard node-based design as a way of designing railroads, but I doubt that anyone would call it "linear".

I knew I was taking a chance even mentioning the term! I said earlier that nobody agrees what it means. But I totally get your point. A roller coaster is a form of railroad, after all! And even real railroads have junction points...although the train engineer has to rely on somebody on the ground to switch the tracks over. Anyhow, pursuing this further would derail the topic at hand so I shall simply regret my mention!

Conversely, The Green Knight is (it seems) linear but I don't see any sense in which it's a railroad. There are no dependencies between scenes, and therefore each scene can resolve however it resolves, with no need to manipulate backstory or fudge results or puts limits around permissible action declarations.

Very good point! I stand corrected.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[Malmuria]

With a scenario with nodes, the most likely railroading situation is a dm not allowing a scene to ‘fail.’ The PCs show up to interrogate a key witness, but either don’t get the clues they would need, or don’t understand the clues given, for them to get to the next ‘level’ of nodes (‘D’ in the linked article). The other way it might end up a railroad is if they end up at the next part of the scenario but they can’t progress because reasons. Videogames often work this way, where in order to get to the next bit of content you have to trigger a cut scene by doing x, y, and z.

I read Alexander’s thoughts on scenario design as being able to create and run a pre-written scenario while at the same time decreasingly the likelihood that the dm will feel the need to railroad the pcs to the next scene.

I think it can be made more dynamic in various ways. For example, there could be a timer (‘what happens if the pcs do nothing?’). Or the dm can just figure out how the pcs actions in one node would change the entire gamestate.